Carole Adams, Mom Who Lost Son In San Bernardino Shooting, Sides With Apple (washingtontimes.com)

HughPickens.com writes: The Washington Times reports that Carole Adams, the mother of Robert Adams -- a 40-year-old environmental health specialist who was shot dead in the San Bernardino, Calif., massacre by Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife in December -- is siding with Apple in its battle to protect consumer's privacy rights. Adams says she stands by Apple's decision to fight a federal court order to create software that would allow federal authorities to access the shooter's password-blocked iPhone. She understands the FBI's need to search Farook's phone, but says it has to be done without putting others at risk. "This is what separates us from communism, isn't it? The fact we have the right to privacy," she told the New York Post. "I think Apple is definitely within their rights to protect the privacy of all Americans. This is what makes America great to begin with, that we abide by a Constitution that gives us the right of privacy, the right to bear arms, and the right to vote."

Comments

Re:Nope

[AchilleTalon]

Provided the iPhone is San Bernardino's county property, the privacy issue is nullified. Apple should stop playing the wrong game here and give the FBI what it asks for in this particular case, given everyone knows Apple's security is an illusion anyway. To crack a 4 digit password by brute force attack you simply need to have the delay between attempts set to 0 and the code wiping the data on the iPhone being neutralized. Which is a two lines of code modification in the firmware. No magic here. WIth a 4 digit password using potentially 75 different characters (upper/lower case + number + special characters) you have to try 30 million combinations at most. Something that can be easily done without any specialized hardware or on-steroids computer.

The security is just something you get because someone cannot try 30 million combinations in minutes on your iPhone because he has to wait a few seconds between each trial and is limited in the number of trials before cracking the iPhone becomes useless due to data deletion.

Why is her opinion relevant?

[dsmatthews9379]

She never had the power of attorney over the person who died, she can't speak for them even if their wishes were relevant, which they are not.

It is a matter of what legal rights Apple has to refuse to cooperate, that would be a question to put to an expert in constitutional law.

What is it with the media that make them think that having some connection to a victim of crime somehow makes you an expert at anything other than how the event impacted on you and how you feel about it?